AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ilesh J. Vora, J
Heard learned advocate for the petitioner – original plaintiff.
The petitioner filed a suit against his wife and sons for vacant possession of the suit property. His right to adduce the evidence is closed down by the Court concerned as he failed to pursue the proceedings in a reasonable time. He moved an application Exh.29, Family Suit no.1714 of 12017 to reopen his right so as to enable him to adduce the evidence. The Court-below vide order dated 30.06.2023 allowed the application with a condition to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the cost to be paid to the respondent – wife.
Being aggrieved with the order, present petition is being filed invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that imposing such hard condition would deny the right to adduce the evidence, and therefore, considering the economic condition of the petitioner, the Court could not have imposed such hard conditions.
Perused the impugned order. This Court is of the considered view that without considering the factual background of the case, more particularly capacity of the petitioner, the Court arbitrarily imposed the conditions which cannot be sustainable in law. Thus, without much discussion on merits of the case, the impugned order imposing cost of Rs.30,000/- is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/-towards cost to be paid to the respondent wife. He is directed to deposit this amount on or before 05.08.2023 before the Family Court. The respondent – wife is at liberty to withdraw the same without no objection of the petitioner.
With the above observations, present petition stands disposed of.